abandoning the general use of 120 vac wiring throughout residences

[hbiss]

Perhaps when I initially explained my point, I should've been more clear so you knew that I knew AC is delivered to buildings.

I don't think any of us questioned whether you knew AC is delivered to buildings. Doesn't change anything.

-Hal

 

[ggunn]

Perhaps when I initially explained my point, I should've been more clear so you knew that I knew AC is delivered to buildings. The way you responded made it seem like you didn't understand that distributing DC power throughout a building would eliminate individual conversions at the load level, so yeah, I corrected you. Sorry if I hurt your ego.

I don't think that it is his ego that is the problem.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I think you will find a lot of skeptics here regarding the course the NEC has taken the last few decades. I am one of them.

Unfortunately, it is a mostly "volunteer" effort. So, to get any actual representation in the process basically means whomever the employer is basically has to pay for someone to be the volunteer. No employer does that without expecting to get something in return.

If you look at the makeup of the code making panels, it is entirely made up of people employed by entities that have a very serious financial interest at stake. There are hundreds, maybe thousands of people on these panels. As far as I know, not a single one of them is not employed by an entity that does not have an interest in making this stuff more expensive. I don't believe there is a single representative of the people actually paying for all of this "safety".

Every code making panel has a member of the interest group "users"

"User (U): A representative of an entity that is subject to the provisions of the standard or that voluntarily uses the standard."

One of the purposes of that interest group is to look at things like paying for the cost of the changes. Some panels have 25% of the total members from the "users" group and in addition, the members that represent contractors also often object to changes based on the cost impact.
No interest group is permitted to have more than one third of the total panel membership and it takes a 2/3s majority to pass a code change.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Yes, it's peanuts. Take a washing machine, a dishwasher, coffee machine, electric kettle............etc. None of which requires DC.
Abandoning AC power in residences is not an option.

And the 2023 code will not even permit Class 4 systems in dwelling units.

726.12 Uses Not Permitted.
Class 4 power systems shall not be permitted in dwelling units.

 

[Besoeker3]

And the 2023 code will not even permit Class 4 systems in dwelling units.

I'm sure you are correct. Know know I'm an ignorant Brit on those codes but I'm pretty sure that abandoning DC in residences aint't gonna happen.
As an aside I spent a lot of my working life designing and manufacturing DC systems. I wonder if the poster understands that. I suspect not. Anyway we have probably done this topic to death. I'm going to stroll with my dog.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I'm sure you are correct. Know know I'm an ignorant Brit on those codes but I'm pretty sure that abandoning DC in residences aint't gonna happen.
As an aside I spent a lot of my working life designing and manufacturing DC systems. I wonder if the poster understands that. I suspect not. Anyway we have probably done this topic to death. I'm going to stroll with my dog.

It might if the green energy people keep making almost impossible for electrical utilities to economically survive. Produce your own power or go back to candles and such.

 

[wwhitney]

It might if the green energy people keep making almost impossible for electrical utilities to economically survive.

Umm, it's up to the appropriate governing body (e.g. the state legislature) to set rules for the electrical market, in a way that will meet societal goals. If electrical utilities are getting the short end of the stick, apparently they are lobbying properly. Which I would find very surprising.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

It might if the green energy people keep making almost impossible for electrical utilities to economically survive. Produce your own power or go back to candles and such.

Never in a million years would I use hyperbole to make a point.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Umm, it's up to the appropriate governing body (e.g. the state legislature) to set rules for the electrical market, in a way that will meet societal goals. If electrical utilities are getting the short end of the stick, apparently they are lobbying properly. Which I would find very surprising.

Cheers, Wayne

It appears to me that many of the people in those governing bodies think that the societal goals require all power to come from wind and solar.

 

[wwhitney]

It appears to me that many of the people in those governing bodies think that the societal goals require all power to come from wind and solar.

Agreed, that's clearly not going to work without a lot of electrical storage to go with it. But business as usual is obviously also not working. Transitions are tricky.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ggunn]

It appears to me that many of the people in those governing bodies think that the societal goals require all power to come from wind and solar.

Not all power and not any time soon. Burning fossil fuels to generate power is not sustainable over the very long haul; diversification into sustainable sources of power needs to get under way while other resources are still relatively plentiful.

 

[petersonra]

Not all power and not any time soon. Burning fossil fuels to generate power is not sustainable over the very long haul; diversification into sustainable sources of power needs to get under way while other resources are still relatively plentiful.

Very long haul being multiple centuries though. There is essentially an infinite amount of carbon-based fuels available, at least for the foreseeable future, they will just cost a little bit more to go get.

Eventually we will come up with something that really is sustainable like fusion power. Or maybe nuclear batteries. Wind and solar are probably going to go the way of the dinosaur and not real long in the future.

 

[Besoeker3]

It appears to me that many of the people in those governing bodies think that the societal goals require all power to come from wind and solar.

I just don't know what the answer is. Wind power is variable and that is a constraint. The North Sea for Scotland can be at times. Oil will eventually run out. Solar for half the day? Nuclear has its merits bur it is not very flexible and there are Uranium sources are finite too. I don't mean to be depressing about this but I am an ancient phart so the issue will be more pertinent to the younger generation.

 

[wwhitney]

Very long haul being multiple centuries though. There is essentially an infinite amount of carbon-based fuels available, at least for the foreseeable future, they will just cost a little bit more to go get.

And how hot would you like to make the planet? It would be wisest to ramp down to 0%-20% of the carbon based fuels we are using over the next 20-30 years.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[RumRunner]

It might if the green energy people keep making almost impossible for electrical utilities to economically survive. Produce your own power or go back to candles and such.

Even when reverting back to candles we would still need power to manufacture the candles.
The "green " squad does not dictate how the marketing should be conducted.
It has no teeth to bite with and control the market.
We live in a laissez faire, free market economy which means we let the market dictate. The practice also promotes competition.

Of course there are regulatory controls to make sure the market work within the framework of good business practices.



. . . . .

 

[ggunn]

Very long haul being multiple centuries though. There is essentially an infinite amount of carbon-based fuels available, at least for the foreseeable future, they will just cost a little bit more to go get.

Eventually we will come up with something that really is sustainable like fusion power. Or maybe nuclear batteries. Wind and solar are probably going to go the way of the dinosaur and not real long in the future.

I do not agree that the problem of diminishing fossil fuel resources is "multiple centuries" in the future. Just in my lifetime I have seen petroleum resources get significantly harder and more expensive to reach. Along highway 90 between Lake Charles and Houston there used to be places where you could not see the horizon for all the oil derricks. They are all gone now; there are maybe a handful of operating pumpjacks along that stretch of I-10 and I haven't seen a working rig there in years. The low hanging fruit is already gone; my first job out of college was on oil and gas exploration rigs, so I know how deep wells were having to be drilled even then, and that was in the late 1970's.

Wind and solar are doing just fine and they are not going away. Despite what you say, no one with half a brain expects them to solve all energy problems, but unless and until some other major breakthrough in energy production comes around to take over the heavy lifting, wind and solar will always be part of the energy picture.

 

[mtnelect]

I haven't worked on a "Touch Plate" system in years ... is this back to the future ?

 

[tortuga]

Nuclear has its merits bur it is not very flexible and there are Uranium sources are finite too.

It appears the UK is no longer perusing Nuclear fission, they have switched to Nuclear fusion and backed it up with a massive amount of funding.
The first plant is supposed to output a net gain of 500MW.

STEP - One mission. One vision. One planet.

STEP is the UK’s pioneering technology and infrastructure programme that will develop, scale and deliver fusion energy by building a prototype powerplant at West Burton site in Nottinghamshire.

step.ukaea.uk

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Not all power and not any time soon. Burning fossil fuels to generate power is not sustainable over the very long haul; diversification into sustainable sources of power needs to get under way while other resources are still relatively plentiful.

I understand, but what is being proposed, especially without included nuclear will not be possible for many many decades....if the carbon thing is real, there is no chance of saving the planet without increased nuclear.

One study done by the U of I said that to go carbon free in Illinois without nuclear, we would have to cover some 7-10% of some of the worlds most productive farm land with solar and install storage capacity that is equal to 50 times the total storage that exists in the world today...and that is just one state.

 

[wwhitney]

if the carbon thing is real

The carbon thing is real, as confirmed by (a) basic scientific theory, (b) observations of the Earth's emission spectrum from near-Earth orbit, and (c) the warming trend that for at least the last 20 years has been palpable to any observer.

I do agree that extending the use of existing nuclear plants would seem like an obvious, relatively easy way to reduce the carbon intensiveness of electrical power. I'm in favor of an all available technologies approach, certainly at this point. In 10 or 20 years, some of those technologies may have emerged as superior.

Cheers, Wayne